I don't think you should put that under North Ave - there's very little office space up there, and commuter rail is not the kind of enhanced transit service that Lincoln Park needs anyway.

North/Clybourn has serious potential as an office/residential node, while Lincoln Park (the park itself, plus beaches) is a popular destination for people around the region. As you note, though, a Chicago routing might have equal ridership potential with less tunneling.

Quote:

There's also virtually zero benefit to run the southwest line along Ogden and Polk like that. Keep it on the existing tracks. Add a connection to the Pink Line, build the Circle LIne, increase frequency and make all trains stop at the Halsted station and you add a lot of benefit without having to do expensive and disruptive work just to get to the medical center.

Wait... building two stations and a tunnel through the Medical District is disruptive, but building the Circle Line isn't? I was envisioning the regional-rail system as a more flexible, less-costly replacement for several CTA expansions, including the Circle Line. Northsiders would get one-seat-ride access to the IMD via regional rail; they'd just have to ride Metra to get it. A less costly option might be to use the extra space in the Eisenhower median, but this is much less convenient as well, since most of the jobs are 1/2-mile south.

Quote:

You also don't have any cross-Loop connections, and not a single station in the Loop. I think both of those ommissions are less than ideal.

The transfers at Clybourn and South Loop obviate most of the need for cross-Loop connections. Two lines run through the West Loop (via Union) because that's where most jobs are, while East Loop-bound pax can make a quick transfer to the third line. I figured any kind of Loop tunneling would be complex and insanely expensive, especially the large-diameter tunnels used for regional-rail systems. Streeterville/Water Tower have the same problem, but since they currently have no rail transit, the expense is worth it.

People coming from O'Hare on the MD-W or from Aurora on the BNSF would not have the option of transfering, so cross-Loop is still needed in some form - this is perhaps a better job for a CTA expansion (bus subway?) As I noted above, the locus of jobs has been moving steadily towards the West Loop for years now, so cross-Loop is becoming less of a concern.

In what days do you consider it failed? While the Reading viaduct is still there, of course the Penn viaduct ("Chinese Wall") which formerly fed Broad Street Station are gone, so ultimately there is minimal required land to serve railway terminals in the business core, which is the primary benefit of regional rail through-routing...

Thanks, those articles are markedly better/longer than the last time I looked. I guess I'm more interested in the process of implementing regional rail, from an organizational perspective... running trains on short headways, switching to ticket machines and turnstiles, making tough decisions about which stations and branches don't have the ridership to merit regional-rail levels of service, etc.

It seems like SEPTA's biggest issue was not a lack of ideas, but severe difficulty getting the existing commuter-rail personnel to accept new ways of thinking (made worse by funding crises that seemed to hit at the worst possible times). If Metra's ever gonna change, the people driving the change will encounter the same stiff resistance that SEPTA did, from "rail" workers who seem themselves as diametrically opposed to "transit" workers and who seek to maintain the same operating practices that railroading used in 1900.

Even the Illinois Central, which had some unusual operating practices as they essentially ran rapid transit for the south side, slowly began to lose its best features as Metra took over with its traditional-railroading mindset. Many urban stations were axed, while the rest were left to deteriorate into a shameful set of flag stops. It's absolutely essential for the continued growth of Chicagoland that Metra adapts and embraces a more flexible, broader view of railroading - this is my biggest beef with the Gray Line, which basically admits defeat and claims that the only way for Metra Electric to get reasonable service is to hand the line over to CTA.

Even the Illinois Central, which had some unusual operating practices as they essentially ran rapid transit for the south side, slowly began to lose its best features as Metra took over with its traditional-railroading mindset. Many urban stations were axed, while the rest were left to deteriorate into a shameful set of flag stops. It's absolutely essential for the continued growth of Chicagoland that Metra adapts and embraces a more flexible, broader view of railroading - this is my biggest beef with the Gray Line, which basically admits defeat and claims that the only way for Metra Electric to get reasonable service is to hand the line over to CTA.

I most have certainly N O T admitted defeat, and the line would N O T be "handed over" to CTA.

CTA would have NO ROLE WHATSOEVER in Operating the Gray Line trains, only forwarding schedule requests to Metra; whose trains would be operated ONLY by Metra crews (with NO on-board Fare collection).

CTA Customer Assistants would man all the Gray Line stations during all train operating hours (just like on the 'L').

But again: CTA would have NO ROLE in the actual operation of the Metra Gray Line trains.

Thanks, those articles are markedly better/longer than the last time I looked. I guess I'm more interested in the process of implementing regional rail, from an organizational perspective... running trains on short headways, switching to ticket machines and turnstiles, making tough decisions about which stations and branches don't have the ridership to merit regional-rail levels of service, etc.

It seems like SEPTA's biggest issue was not a lack of ideas, but severe difficulty getting the existing commuter-rail personnel to accept new ways of thinking (made worse by funding crises that seemed to hit at the worst possible times). If Metra's ever gonna change, the people driving the change will encounter the same stiff resistance that SEPTA did, from "rail" workers who seem themselves as diametrically opposed to "transit" workers and who seek to maintain the same operating practices that railroading used in 1900.

Even the Illinois Central, which had some unusual operating practices as they essentially ran rapid transit for the south side, slowly began to lose its best features as Metra took over with its traditional-railroading mindset. Many urban stations were axed, while the rest were left to deteriorate into a shameful set of flag stops. It's absolutely essential for the continued growth of Chicagoland that Metra adapts and embraces a more flexible, broader view of railroading - this is my biggest beef with the Gray Line, which basically admits defeat and claims that the only way for Metra Electric to get reasonable service is to hand the line over to CTA.

What? Septa doesn't have any ideas , they rather shrink there network. They lie about the condition of some lines saying they were falling apart or some bridges , when in truth the lines are in decent shape and the bridges needed some work. If my Employee friends were running Septa it would function... Alot of the Septa employees are disgusting with management at Septa which is very backwards buses over Rail hench why they suspended the Trolley 56 & 23 which Penn Dot has rebuilt but Septa hasn't restarted the line yet... Yes Septa doesn't get fair funding , but that doesn't excuse the shortcuts they take and ending service. They've even sold lines or renting knowing they'll have to restore them over the next 2 decades.... If Metra were to follow another Railroad it should be Metro North over Septa or NJT.... But not Septa or the LIRR which are both run by morons who keep destroying the RR then expanding and enhancing it.

...
Wait... building two stations and a tunnel through the Medical District is disruptive, but building the Circle Line isn't? I was envisioning the regional-rail system as a more flexible, less-costly replacement for several CTA expansions, including the Circle Line. Northsiders would get one-seat-ride access to the IMD via regional rail; they'd just have to ride Metra to get it. A less costly option might be to use the extra space in the Eisenhower median, but this is much less convenient as well, since most of the jobs are 1/2-mile south.

Your proposal duplicates existing service (with the exception of the Tri-Taylor stop, your stations are less than 1/2 mile from existing Blue or Pink Line stations), and most of the Circle Line is just routing changes. The Tri-Taylor stop is hemmed in on three sides by industrial uses and freight train tracks - the ridership potential for a station like that wouldn't even come close to justifying the cost. Tunnels and underground stations like that would in no way be "less-costly replacement" for CTA expansions, and unless you run trains at CTA-level frequency - probably not cost-effective - it would be penny-wise, pound-foolish to spend nearly as much with a small fraction of the overall benefit. The IMD is important, but because of the nature of the work, it will always have a large portion of people driving, and it is fairly well served already, and with the addition of the Circle Line plus planned BRT service on Western will become increasingly better-served without very expensive specialty tunnels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

The transfers at Clybourn and South Loop obviate most of the need for cross-Loop connections. Two lines run through the West Loop (via Union) because that's where most jobs are, while East Loop-bound pax can make a quick transfer to the third line. I figured any kind of Loop tunneling would be complex and insanely expensive, especially the large-diameter tunnels used for regional-rail systems. Streeterville/Water Tower have the same problem, but since they currently have no rail transit, the expense is worth it.

A good solution would help transit within downtown as well as transit outside of downtown. That's why a cross-loop solution is preferred to one in which you can only cross sides outside the Loop. Any sort of big rework like this would require changing the trainsets to electric, which would mean smaller cars. Not as small as metro-style trains, but nowhere near as big as current Metra locomotives. Tunnels wouldn't need to be insanely big. Monroe has ROW preserved and should be able to accommodate such a thing.

The West Loop has a lot of growing office space, however the Central Loop still has the most. Only dropping people in the West or East Loop areas continues the problem of dropping people outside of the center of where they work. While allowing people to transfer to the East Loop trains helps solve the issue of the East Loop losing offices due to poor accessibility for commuters, it doesn't help those in the center of the Loop.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

People coming from O'Hare on the MD-W or from Aurora on the BNSF would not have the option of transfering, so cross-Loop is still needed in some form - this is perhaps a better job for a CTA expansion (bus subway?) As I noted above, the locus of jobs has been moving steadily towards the West Loop for years now, so cross-Loop is becoming less of a concern.

It has only been moving westward because Chicago has done such a crap job providing cross-loop transit.

People *want* to work near the lake. If it were easy for commuters to get to Streeterville and/or the central Loop, those would grow. Streeterville could use more offices, and better transit would allow people to get there.

I do like the idea of the 1968 Central Area Plan's West Loop-Streeterville subway, but if you're building subways for commuter lines anyway, they make more sense. Ideally, though, perhaps redesigning things so both CTA and electric Metra trains can use the same rails and same tunnels would be the best solution.

Your proposal duplicates existing service (with the exception of the Tri-Taylor stop, your stations are less than 1/2 mile from existing Blue or Pink Line stations), and most of the Circle Line is just routing changes. The Tri-Taylor stop is hemmed in on three sides by industrial uses and freight train tracks - the ridership potential for a station like that wouldn't even come close to justifying the cost.

You can't ride the Pink Line to Naperville. The goal is to bring the entire region to the doorstep of important destinations that are scattered around the city.

Ignore the Tri-Taylor stop... it's just a random idea to serve the far west end of the IMD, which may eventually reach some seriously high employment density, especially with improved transit access. With an alignment shift, it could be built above-ground anyway.

Partially, the network serves my long-standing goal of decentralizing the Loop into a handful of office nodes in the central area. This isn't fantasyland - it's already happening, as major institutions look outside the Loop for large areas of land and the private sector seeks out an ever-larger supply of cheap loft space. Who would have thought even 20 years ago that Chicago/Larrabee would be a huge center of white-collar jobs? In the same vein, who would have thought that the Central Loop would be going residential at an astonishing rate? The Loop shouldn't necessarily be the center of all things in 21st-century Chicago.

You can't ride the Pink Line to Naperville. The goal is to bring the entire region to the doorstep of important destinations that are scattered around the city.

Ignore the Tri-Taylor stop... it's just a random idea to serve the far west end of the IMD, which may eventually reach some seriously high employment density, especially with improved transit access. With an alignment shift, it could be built above-ground anyway.

Partially, the network serves my long-standing goal of decentralizing the Loop into a handful of office nodes in the central area. This isn't fantasyland - it's already happening, as major institutions look outside the Loop for large areas of land and the private sector seeks out an ever-larger supply of cheap loft space. Who would have thought even 20 years ago that Chicago/Larrabee would be a huge center of white-collar jobs? In the same vein, who would have thought that the Central Loop would be going residential at an astonishing rate? The Loop shouldn't necessarily be the center of all things in 21st-century Chicago.

You can't ride UP-N to Naperville either. You can't provide one-seat rides to everyone - transfers are part of a good system. You could ride BNSF to the Pink Line and transfer, though, for a lot less than moving all that rail over 1/2 mile or tunnelling. That's my point. Fantasy maps are nice, but if you're actually trying to present something that is more than just fantasy relative costs have to play a factor. So what if the Central Loop goes heavily residential? They'll still need access to other places - perhaps one of your other nodes. Whatever takes hold in the central Loop is going to be dense, and worth of a station serving at least a couple different commuter lines. Ignoring the Loop would be like ignoring Midtown in New York. Sure, you need other things going on, but the Loop is still the economic nexus of the City and it would be unnecessarily risky to just ignore it and emphasize other parts of the city. We do need to have more than just the Loop, but we do still also need the Loop - it's a unique feature that partially defines Chicago

Almost 30 years ago, it was thought that the area around Larrabee and Chicago would become something similar to what it has become. It might be news to you, but you should check out some of what the City has published over the years (most of it prior to 2000 isn't online, though, so you'll have to put in some effort). 45 years ago, people expected Streeterville to explode, and the main thing that kept it from happening sooner, faster was the lack of good transit in that area connecting it to the West Loop commuter rail stations.

Central Paris plus La Defense, the areas best served by a mesh of RER and Metro, is about 45 square miles. That's like Irving Park to Pershing, the Lake to Kedzie. And, more or less, that's the area most strongly gentrifying right now.

Ignoring the Loop would be like ignoring Midtown in New York. Sure, you need other things going on, but the Loop is still the economic nexus of the City and it would be unnecessarily risky to just ignore it and emphasize other parts of the city. We do need to have more than just the Loop, but we do still also need the Loop - it's a unique feature that partially defines Chicago

Point taken. It's endlessly frustrating that Metra essentially ignores everything between the downtown terminals and the city line. I might have been compensating for this a little bit by intentionally downplaying the Loop.

Do you think a station with sufficient capacity could be built in the Loop? It would instantly become one of, if not the busiest station on the system. I'm trying to figure out where you'd put it... beneath Monroe from State to Clark? Then, how would you approach a Monroe subway from the various rail lines leading into the Central Area? Turn radii are severely constrained by the deep foundations of skyscrapers (a problem that Paris doesn't have).

For comparison, the curve leading into the north end of Union Station is roughly 375'. Shorter rolling stock might allow for tighter curves, but you don't wanna get railcars as short as the L, since they're not really comfortable at high speeds.

I'm nearly speechless. If you aren't not the exemplar of impassioned dedication I don't know who is. I commend you for all the work you've put toward this issue and hope you never give up the good work.

Hello again Bee, if you want to see what I'm up against - look at the article again (the Comments) and see how someone is trying to cut me (and the Project) to pieces:

Point taken. It's endlessly frustrating that Metra essentially ignores everything between the downtown terminals and the city line. I might have been compensating for this a little bit by intentionally downplaying the Loop.

Do you think a station with sufficient capacity could be built in the Loop? It would instantly become one of, if not the busiest station on the system. I'm trying to figure out where you'd put it... beneath Monroe from State to Clark? Then, how would you approach a Monroe subway from the various rail lines leading into the Central Area? Turn radii are severely constrained by the deep foundations of skyscrapers (a problem that Paris doesn't have).

For comparison, the curve leading into the north end of Union Station is roughly 375'. Shorter rolling stock might allow for tighter curves, but you don't wanna get railcars as short as the L, since they're not really comfortable at high speeds.

The curves are definitely an issue, one that I'm not really qualified to address properly. I suppose I would assume they would do their turns outside of the high-rise district but I do recognize that I may be naive about how much can be engineered around existing structures.

$50 million? Morgan only cost $38 million, and it was elevated above a street with no room for construction staging. Plus, that was a very generous budget. I'm sorry, but costs don't rise 30% in 2 years.

Isn’t the $50 million cost old news? I’m pretty sure much of the cost is your typical large American city public works cost bloat, but unlike Morgan Cermak will be an island station—I wonder if that might require some more track work.

Still, it’s a lot for a station that fills a very narrow niche. Whereas the station at Morgan followed redevelopment in the West Loop (with the caveat that I recall reading that it was considered as part of the Lake Street reconstruction), the Cermak station seems to be intended as a means of leading redevelopment in Motor Row—that’s a risky proposition, and the fact that the are is typically discussed as a future “entertainment district” rather than a dense community full of housing. Combined with the fact that there’s a fair amount of transit infrastructure nearby (What’s happening to the South Lakefront study? And sure the block of Cermak between Clark and State is a bit imposing to walk through, but is it $50 million worth of imposing?), it all makes me wonder whether the station serves much of a purpose beyond burning off TIF money on something useful-looking.

Anyway, in less cynical news this should be of interest to a lot of forumers:

A new website at ctastationwatch.com is asking transit riders and construction buffs to share what they see every day as the Chicago Transit Authority embarks on a complex series of station rebuilds on the North Red Line.

[…]

Started by long-time transit watchers Patrick Barry and Kevin O’Neil, the site allows crowdsourced sharing of information via Twitter feeds (@stationCTA), a Facebook page and a group pool of photos on Flickr. Over Memorial Day weekend, for instance, O’Neil tweeted that Kiewit workers were tearing the roof off a former currency exchange under the Morse "L" station. Barry noticed rail ties and other materials stockpiled in a fenced lot on Broadway south of Foster.

“This is going to be a ton of fun for all of us who like watching public works projects,” said Barry, an urban issues writer for the last 31 years. “By tapping the eyes and ears of the riders and neighborhood residents, we’ll be able to track the action on a day-to-day basis.”

$50 million? Morgan only cost $38 million, and it was elevated above a street with no room for construction staging. Plus, that was a very generous budget. I'm sorry, but costs don't rise 30% in 2 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan

Isn’t the $50 million cost old news? I’m pretty sure much of the cost is your typical large American city public works cost bloat, but unlike Morgan Cermak will be an island station—I wonder if that might require some more track work.

...

Also, the article says the station will have entrances on both the north and south sides of Cermak, plus a third one at the south end. That seems like a lot more work than Morgan.

Could there be major program elements to accommodate the particularly large surges of riders that will occur during McCormick events -- like many more elevators (or extra-large elevators), escalators, or extra wide platforms or anything? Not that Wrigley and Grant Park (for example) events don't bring their own surges, but those stations weren't originally designed for sudden crowds. Also, I have some vague recollection of talk of an entrance or exit that stretched (presumably as an elevated walkway) all the way to the east side of Wabash, though that might've been our own wishful-thinking internal banter. Some of these high-capacity features could be locked closed when high-traffic events are not going on, if vandalism is a concern.

Alternatively, could the $50 million include funds for land acquisition for and construction of a larger station building that includes extra space for retail tenants (or just concourse space to shelter the crowds, if there is a logjam going into or out of the ticket gates and it's howling freezing winds outside)? This comes to mind because there seems to be a lot of vacant land next to the station site.

$50 million? Morgan only cost $38 million, and it was elevated above a street with no room for construction staging. Plus, that was a very generous budget. I'm sorry, but costs don't rise 30% in 2 years.

Guys, published cost figures like these are basically never apples to apples for a laundry list of reasons impacting what is being included in the "all-in" project cost. For example, the Morgan project cost $38m, but the actual construction contract to the general contractor to build it was $25.3m.

In other CDOT station news, the construction contract for the Clark/Division rehab was just awarded for $41.4m.